Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com Mail-Followup-To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com, cygwin@sources.redhat.com, dj@redhat.com From: Ian Lance Taylor To: DJ Delorie Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com, cygwin@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Another RFC: regex in libiberty References: <200106080127.VAA01308@greed.delorie.com> Date: 07 Jun 2001 18:31:08 -0700 In-Reply-To: <200106080127.VAA01308@greed.delorie.com> Message-ID: Lines: 22 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii DJ Delorie writes: > [More lists added to get a wider audience] > > I didn't get a clear feeling about what people wanted wrt this. I saw > three people propose three versions of regex, not much to go on. Is > this a big deal? Will it really get used by everyone who currently > has their own regex? Is it important to try to use a BSD-licensed > regex to minimize future problems? > > The two contenders seem to be a modified GNU regex and the > ever-popular Henry Spencer's regex. Does anyone have any strong > opinions for either of these, or against any regex in libiberty at > all? gdb already ships with gnu-regex.c. Why not just move that to libiberty? I can't see any reason for a BSD-licensed regex in libiberty. libiberty already GPL code. Ian -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple